It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

if osama was unarmed, why did the kill him?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
the CIA always kills their assets when they have a better use for them




posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


If they had not killed him he'd have been able to give us information, you answered your own question. There obviously is something he would have said that the Government did not want us to know! Maybe like he didn't do it, maybe like it was an inside job, he had to know something awful incriminating. JMO.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
because they had to off him

if he talked and told people he was paid by us

that would make us look bad

even tho we already do

i am sitting here to trying to figure that one out

people have a low opinion of ameirca is it right now

theres nothing more that bin laden coulda said that most of us didnt already know.

it was assination by the nobel peace prize winner.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


I can think of quite a few very good reasons for assassinating him but before I go into it I want to point out something that I think has been over looked on the ATS threads so far. America has just carried out state sanctioned assassination using intelligence operatives and military personnel in a foreign sovereign territory, this is a massive breach of international law. And that is why they “should” have taken him alive, even though kidnapping him would have still be illegal. However I agree with assassinating him, and this is why.

Contrary to what you have said in your OP, he most probably would have no valuable intelligence of any current Al’Qa’ida operations. He had no operational control over Al’Qa’ida or any of it’s splinter groups even if he did they wouldn’t tell him anything because he was always at a high risk of getting captured and so distancing him form operational matters would have made sense. So because they wouldn’t have found out about future plans, weapons sore’s and finances there would have been very little point in interrogating him.

Also think about the troubles of getting KSM to trial, could you imagine just now difficult that would have been with OBL. Then think of the up roar in America when the discovered that he was not going to be tried for 9/11 but for the 1998 bombings. The problems with putting him up on trial would be immense when one looks at the case of KSM. Taking out the legal aspect of this, what about security in guarding him security during trials and so on it was just much easier to get it over and done with quickly.

The CIA have always said that he would never be taken alive, he was always going to be assassinated and for good reason.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by taskforce4256
 


So...what you are saying, is that counter-terrorism is the equal and opposing reaction of terrorism...

Can someone please explain to me, again, How are we the good guys still?




top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join